Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a well-accepted option for treating patients with aortic stenosis at intermediate to high or prohibitive surgical risk. TAVR-related conduction disturbances, mainly new-onset left bundle-branch block and advanced atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacemaker implantation, remain the most common complication of this procedure. Furthermore, improvements in TAVR technology, akin to the increasing experience of operators/centers, have translated to a major reduction in periprocedural complications, yet the incidence of conduction disturbances has remained relatively high, with perhaps an increasing trend over time. Several factors have been associated with a heightened risk of conduction disturbances and permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVR, with prior right bundle-branch block and transcatheter valve type and implantation depth being the most commonly reported. New-onset left bundle-branch block and the need for permanent pacemaker implantation may have a significant detrimental association with patients' prognosis. Consequently, strategies intended to reduce the risk and to improve the management of such complications are of paramount importance, particularly in an era when TAVR expansion toward treating lower-risk patients is considered inevitable. In this article, we review the available evidence on the incidence, predictive factors, and clinical association of conduction disturbances after TAVR and propose a strategy for the management of these complications.

The need for PPI post-TAVR was frequent and associated with an increased risk of heart failure rehospitalization and lack of LVEF improvement, but not mortality, after a median follow-up of 4 years. Most patients with new PPI post-TAVR exhibited some degree of pacing activity at follow-up.

BACKGROUND Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory-syndrome coronavirus-2 that interfaces with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) through angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This interaction has been proposed as a potential risk factor in patients treated with RAAS inhibitors. OBJECTIVES This study analyzed whether RAAS inhibitors modify the risk for COVID-19. METHODS The RASTAVI (Renin-Angiotensin System Blockade Benefits in Clinical Evolution and Ventricular Remodeling After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial is an ongoing randomized clinical trial randomly allocating subjects to ramipril or control groups after successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement at 14 centers in Spain. A non-prespecified interim analysis was performed to evaluate ramipril's impact on COVID-19 risk in this vulnerable population. RESULTS As of April 1, 2020, 102 patients (50 in the ramipril group and 52 in the control group) were included in the trial. Mean age was 82.3 AE 6.1 years, 56.9% of the participants were male. Median time of ramipril treatment was 6 months (interquartile range: 2.9 to 11.4 months). Eleven patients (10.8%) have been diagnosed with COVID-19 (6 in control group and 5 receiving ramipril; hazard ratio: 1.150; 95% confidence interval: 0.351 to 3.768). The risk of COVID-19 was increased in older patients (p ¼ 0.019) and those with atrial fibrillation (p ¼ 0.066), lower hematocrit (p ¼ 0.084), and more comorbidities according to Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (p ¼ 0.065). Admission and oxygen supply was required in 4.9% of patients (2 in the ramipril group and 3 in the control group), and 4 of them died (2 in each randomized group). A higher body mass index was the only factor increasing the mortality rate (p ¼ 0.039). CONCLUSIONS In a high-risk population of older patients with cardiovascular disease, randomization to ramipril had no impact on the incidence or severity of COVID-19. This analysis supports the maintenance of RAAS inhibitor treatment during the COVID-19 crisis. (Renin-Angiotensin System Blockade Benefits in Clinical Evolution and Ventricular Remodeling After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation [RASTAVI]; NCT03201185)

In recent times, there has been a considerable increase in the use of aortic bioprostheses (vs. mechanical prostheses) for treating aortic valve disease, and this tendency is likely to continue in the near future. However, the occurrence of structural valve degeneration, limiting valve durability, remains an important drawback of surgical and transcatheter bioprostheses. In this paper, we provide an overview of bioprosthetic valve durability, focusing on the definition, incidence, mechanisms, predictive factors, and management of structural degeneration of aortic bioprostheses.

No abstract

Background The optimal access for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) who are not candidates for a transfemoral approach has not been elucidated. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety, feasibility, and early clinical outcomes of transcarotid TAVR compared with thoracic approaches. Methods and Results From a multicenter consecutive cohort of 329 alternative-access TAVR patients (2012–2017), we identified 101 patients who underwent transcarotid TAVR and 228 patients who underwent a transapical or transaortic TAVR. Preprocedural success and 30-day clinical outcomes were compared using multivariable propensity score analysis to account for between-group differences in baseline characteristics. All transcarotid cases were performed under general anesthesia, mainly using the left common carotid artery (97%). Propensity-matched groups had similar rates of 30-day all-cause mortality (2.1% versus 4.6%; P =0.37), stroke (2.1% versus 3.5%; P =0.67; transcarotid versus transapical/transaortic, respectively), new pacemaker implantation, and major vascular complications. Transcarotid TAVR was associated with significantly less new-onset atrial fibrillation (3.2% versus 19.0%; P =0.002), major or life-threatening bleeding (4.3% versus 19.9%; P =0.002), acute kidney injury (none versus 12.1%; P =0.002), and shorter median length of hospital stay (6 versus 8 days; P <0.001). Conclusions Transcarotid vascular access for TAVR is safe and feasible and is associated with encouraging short-term clinical outcomes. Our data suggest a clinical benefit of transcarotid TAVR with respect to atrial fibrillation, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, and length of stay compared with the more invasive transapical or transaortic strategies. Randomized studies are required to ascertain whether transcarotid TAVR yields equivalent results to other alternative vascular access routes.

No abstract

Approximately one-third of patients undergoing TAVR did not improve their exercise capacity postprocedure. The lack of functional improvement post-TAVR was predicted by a mix of baseline and periprocedural factors translating into poorer clinical outcomes. These results suggest that systematically implementing exercise capacity assessment pre- and post-TAVR may help to improve patient risk stratification.